Do you think climate change is real, and man made? (2 Viewers)

[Azure]

Massive breach of trust by Gillard. Getting extremely sick and tired of politicians flat out promising something and then a few months later doing a complete U-turn.

I remember Gillard saying somewhere on the news yesterday that 'this is what voters what'. I'm not too sure how she reached that definitive conclusion since she campaigned for no carbon tax. If she is relying on the fact that the greens hold a balance of power in the senate then I feel extremely sorry for her because she is utterly clueless. That is a hardly a resounding endorsement by voters.

 

[kaz1]

If sea levels rise and the planet cools. Yay the world is killing off people! I endorse this.

Animals would be more affected than humans.

 

[Rothbard]

Carbon tax is a great idea

ETS is a fucking terrible idea that just takes billions from the poor and gives it to macquarie bank and other accounting firms

 

[Lolsmith]

so about 70% of bosers think climate change is real & man made

carbon tax: discuss?

Bob Brown was all smiles at this

 

[davidbarnes]

Massive breach of trust by Gillard. Getting extremely sick and tired of politicians flat out promising something and then a few months later doing a complete U-turn.

I remember Gillard saying somewhere on the news yesterday that 'this is what voters what'. I'm not too sure how she reached that definitive conclusion since she campaigned for no carbon tax. If she is relying on the fact that the greens hold a balance of power in the senate then I feel extremely sorry for her because she is utterly clueless. That is a hardly a resounding endorsement by voters.

Its not a massive breach of trust at all, it is the fulfillment of an election commitment and has been Labor party policy since at least 2006. Carbon pricing and ETS are a good thing, it is necessary under situ of the Precautionary Principle.

 

[Azure]

.

 

[Azure]

Watch first few seconds of this moron. How could it be an election promise when she clearly ruled it out. Stop talking shit.

 

[davidbarnes]

Watch first few seconds of this moron. How could it be an election promise when she clearly ruled it out. Stop talking shit.

Its not a tax that will be introduced, it is a price of carbon emissions, then moving to an emissions trading scheme of carbon emissions.

 

[Lolsmith]

davidbarnes strikes again

Under Rudd it was an election promise you fuck not Gillard

 

[Azure]

Its not a tax that will be introduced, it is a price of carbon emissions, then moving to an emissions trading scheme of carbon emissions.

um?

 

[Azure]

Well according to him there is no difference between state and federal labor. I can see him using this as a reason to vote labor at the comming state election.

 

[davidbarnes]

davidbarnes strikes again

Under Rudd it was an election promise you fuck not Gillard

It was an election promise from the 2007 election and is Labor party policy.

 

[Azure]

It was an election promise from the 2007 election and is Labor party policy.

davidbarnes,

 

[davidbarnes]

We have to remember though that Labor do not have a majority in either house and have to work with other parties to get policy though, thus policy is always going to be amended and tweaked etc.

 

[Lolsmith]

Confirmed Labor hack

 

[Lentern]

Massive breach of trust by Gillard. Getting extremely sick and tired of politicians flat out promising something and then a few months later doing a complete U-turn.

I remember Gillard saying somewhere on the news yesterday that 'this is what voters what'. I'm not too sure how she reached that definitive conclusion since she campaigned for no carbon tax. If she is relying on the fact that the greens hold a balance of power in the senate then I feel extremely sorry for her because she is utterly clueless. That is a hardly a resounding endorsement by voters.

You have got to be trolling.

 

[Azure]

So basically what you're saying is you support politicians making promises during election campaigns and turning around and breaking them upon election. Cool.

Gillard is simply trying to please the Greens, it is as simple as that. It is painfully obvious that she is not a risk taker, and we know from history that the implementation of a carbon tax is extremely risky political business. There are other things you can fixate on besides what should be common sense to most people Lentern.

On a seperate note, I also agree with the notion of a carbon tax.

 

[Lentern]

So basically what you're saying is you support politicians making promises during election campaigns and turning around and breaking them upon election. Cool.

Gillard is simply trying to please the Greens, it is as simple as that. It is painfully obvious that she is not a risk taker, and we know from history that the implementation of a carbon tax is extremely risky political business. There are other things you can fixate on besides what should be common sense to most people Lentern.

On a seperate note, I also agree with the notion of a carbon tax.

Treating campaign policies like a narrow set of parameters which governments must stick is just dumb, it's a recipe for bad government. As situations unfold, changes in circumstances beyond the governments control will occur and they need to accommodate themselves to the impact upon it of great forces. This is a government who has always favoured placing a price on carbon as a means of reducing the nations carbon footprint and has been very clear about it. The circumstance it is now faced with is a senate with which legislation can only be passed via agreement with either the Greens or the coalition, the latter of which Kevin Rudd made enormous concessions to over the course of his premiership only for the leadership to renege on it's agreement. The choice it is thus confronted with is to take some pure, ideological stance and get slapped down by the senate, do nothing in other words or act pragmatically with parties willing to negotiate.

The Rudd commitment to keep the budget in surplus is exactly the same thing, circumstances changed and without a single spending increase from the Howard governments last budget he would have still gone into deficit due to the collapse of revenue. Making further budget cuts to try and keep the budget in surplus would have certainly induced a recession but he acted in the nations interest and we are all better for it.

 

[Azure]

Treating campaign policies like a narrow set of parameters which governments must stick is just dumb, it's a recipe for bad government. As situations unfold, changes in circumstances beyond the governments control will occur and they need to accommodate themselves to the impact upon it of great forces.

Nobody is disagreeing with this, but please explain to me what has changed since August which has warranted this back flip? Since nothing dramatic has developed in terms of climate change since August 2010, and since Julia Gillard has not said anything about such a development when announcing this policy, your argument is nothing but a strawman.

This is a government who has always favoured placing a price on carbon as a means of reducing the nations carbon footprint and has been very clear about it.

This was also true up until Gillard announced her government was not intending to introduce a carbon tax. The government does not get to pick and choose which promises it will adhere to. The voting population base their decisions on these promises, and reneging on them is almost fraudulent. If I signed an agreement for a mortgage and the bank suddenly decided it would discriminate against me for whatever reason, and foreclose my house despite a perfect repayment history and consequently breached the contract, I would have grounds for legal action. This is the same deal with the government.

Note that I agree with the fact that in drastic situations governments should sometimes renege on promises in order to accommodate unforseen circumstances. This is definitely not one of those instances.

The circumstance it is now faced with is a senate with which legislation can only be passed via agreement with either the Greens or the coalition, the latter of which Kevin Rudd made enormous concessions to over the course of his premiership only for the leadership to renege on it's agreement. The choice it is thus confronted with is to take some pure, ideological stance and get slapped down by the senate, do nothing in other words or act pragmatically with parties willing to negotiate.
The Rudd commitment to keep the budget in surplus is exactly the same thing, circumstances changed and without a single spending increase from the Howard governments last budget he would have still gone into deficit due to the collapse of revenue. Making further budget cuts to try and keep the budget in surplus would have certainly induced a recession but he acted in the nations interest and we are all better for it.

Again, what has changed so dramatically since August? Nothing.

 

[Lentern]

Nobody is disagreeing with this, but please explain to me what has changed since August which has warranted this back flip? Since nothing dramatic has developed in terms of climate change since August 2010, and since Julia Gillard has not said anything about such a development when announcing this policy, your argument is nothing but a strawman.



This was also true up until Gillard announced her government was not intending to introduce a carbon tax. The government does not get to pick and choose which promises it will adhere to. The voting population base their decisions on these promises, and reneging on them is almost fraudulent. If I signed an agreement for a mortgage and the bank suddenly decided it would discriminate against me for whatever reason, and foreclose my house despite a perfect repayment history and consequently breached the contract, I would have grounds for legal action. This is the same deal with the government.

Note that I agree with the fact that in drastic situations governments should sometimes renege on promises in order to accommodate unforseen circumstances. This is definitely not one of those instances.



Again, what has changed so dramatically since August? Nothing.

What has changed since August, or will shortly change, is the composition of the parliament. John Howard's proposed GST in 1998 had none of the democrats amendments about it.